Re: [Mobopts] IESG 3932 review of draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps
"Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Thu, 24 September 2009 09:49 UTC
Return-Path: <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
X-Original-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563563A687F; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GYIpAlss3T8I; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de (mail2.rz.fhtw-berlin.de [141.45.10.102]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1436C3A689C; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Envelope-to: iesg@ietf.org, mobopts@irtf.org
Received: from [91.113.129.90] (helo=[192.168.1.216]) by mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>) id 1Mqkxi-0005fO-Mm; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4ABB40C9.4050909@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:01 +0200
From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <4ABB39DF.10609@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4ABB39DF.10609@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: ipdvb-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps@tools.ietf.org, multimob-chairs@tools.ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "16ng-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <16ng-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, ml-mobopts <mobopts@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] IESG 3932 review of draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/mobopts>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:49:02 -0000
Hi Jari, many thanks for your review and in particular for the detailed comments: Most of them will obviously improve the document, some of them we have to consider in detail. We will be back with an exhaustive response once we have re-worked all details. Thanks again! Thomas Jari Arkko wrote: > Hi all, > > I have reviewed this document today. The purpose of my review and the > following IESG review is to perform a so called RFC 3932 check, i.e., > make sure that documents outside the IETF stream do not allocate IANA > values reserved for standards track protocols or otherwise collide with > IETF working group efforts. > > I have not found any collision with this work and IETF work, though > obviously, this work has been one of the inputs for the formation of the > MOBOPTS working group, and also talks about IP over a number of link > layers. > > I have recommended the standard RFC 3932 boilerplate IESG note about > non-IETF work. Once the 3932bis work is concluded we will be able to > make use of the new style of headers and boilerplates which do not > require IESG notes. I have written to the tracker that if this happens > before this document comes out of the RFC Editor queue then no note is > needed. > > The document will be under the entire IESG's review in two weeks to > confirm my recommendation. Please remember that neither my review or the > IESG review is a technical review. In other words, the RG is fully > responsible for the correctness of the document. As a personal note I > wanted to say nevertheless that I was reasonably happy with the > document. Thank you for writing this. > > In any case, I have included a few personal review comments below. Also, > as the document contains quite a bit of material relating to IP over > 802.16 and IP over DVB, I have Cced the relevant working group chairs in > case they have further comments. > > Jari Arkko > >> obility management may issue >> traffic directives that lead to suboptimal routing, i.e., erroneous >> subscriptions following predictive handover operations, or slow >> effective leaves caused by MLD querying, or by departure of the MN >> from a previous network without leaving the subscribed groups. >> > > I had a hard time parsing this. Maybe say instead: "Mobility management > may impact routing by, e.g., erroneous ... or by MNs leaving networks > without unsubscribing form the groups they were receiving.". What's a > "slow effective leave"? > >> IP multicast deployment in general has been hesitant over the past 15 >> years > > s/hesitant/slow/? > >> a strong business case for IP >> portables > ... portable IP-based devices. > >> Current packet filtering practice causes inter-working problems >> between Mobile IPv6 nodes connected via GPRS [46 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-08#ref-46>]. >> > This is incorrect AFAIK. There are filtering procedures in IMS that > cause problems for Mobile IPv6 and other things. However, those > filtering mechanisms are not a part of the link layer nor are they > applied for regular Internet access. I would suggest this statement be > deleted from the draft, along with the reference. > >> PTM uses an >> unidirectional common channel, operating in unacknowledged without >> adjustment of power levels and no reporting on lost packets. >> > > ... unacknowledged mode? > >> Mobility services transport for MIH naturally reside >> on the network layer and are currently in the process of >> specification [55 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-08#ref-55>]. >> >> > draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution is an approved specification (though > not yet out of the RFC Ed queue). > > Also, I believe 802.21 specifies both network and link layer transport, > so its not clear why you say "naturally" above. > > In general Section 4 wanders off a little bit to topics outside > multicast. I understand that some amount of explanation is needed about > what each L2 technology does, but I'd consider tightening the text in > AUTH48 in some places. > >> MLD >> router querying will allow the multicast forwarding state to be >> restored in case of an erroneous prediction (i.e., an anticipated >> move to a network that is not fulfilled). > fulfilled? > >> Mobility protocols need to consider the implications and requirements >> for AAA. AAA binding records may change between attachments, or may >> be individually chosen prior to network (re-)association. The most >> appropriate network path may be one that satisfies user preferences, >> e.g., to use/avoid a specific network, minimize monetary cost, etc, >> rather than one that only minimizes the routing cost. Consequently, >> AAA bindings cannot be treated at a pure level of context transfer. >> > It was not clear to me why AAA is relevant. And what's an "AAA binding > record"? I must say that I don't understand the rest of the paragraph > either. > > The term AAA was not defined or expanded. Please check the other terms too. > >> Due to lack of feedback, the admission [83 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-08#ref-83>] >> and binding >> updates [84 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-08#ref-84>] >> of mobile multicast sources require autonomously >> verifiable authentication as can be achieved by Cryptographically >> Generated Addresses (CGAs). >> > And presumably with other means as well. I would suggest saying "... be > achieved by, for instance, ...". > > It would have been interesting if Section 8 listed some of the multicast > specific issues around security. For instance, I would presume that a HA > operating tunneled multicast service by n-casting is more vulnerable to > a DoS attack than some other more native multicast solution. > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > Mobopts mailing list > Mobopts@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts -- Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 ° ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany ° ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 ° ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
- [Mobopts] IESG 3932 review of draft-irtf-mobopts-… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Mobopts] IESG 3932 review of draft-irtf-mobo… Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [Mobopts] IESG 3932 review of draft-irtf-mobo… Koodli, Rajeev
- Re: [Mobopts] IESG 3932 review of draft-irtf-mobo… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Mobopts] IESG 3932 review of draft-irtf-mobo… Thomas C. Schmidt